Pity the investors in the three artificial-intelligence-themed ETFs that managed to lose money this year
4 min
There are lots of embarrassing ways to lose money, but it is particularly galling to lose when you correctly identify the theme that will dominate the market and manage to buy into it at a good moment.
Pity the investors in the three artificial-intelligence-themed exchange-traded funds that managed to lose money this year. Every other AI-flavored ETF I can find has trailed both the S&P 500 and MSCI World. That is before the AI theme itself was seriously questioned last week, when investor doubts about the price of leading AI stocks Nvidia and Super Micro Computer became obvious.
The AI fund disaster should be a cautionary tale for buyers of thematic ETFs, which now cover virtually anything you can think of, including Californian carbon permits (down 15% this year), Chinese cloud computing (down 21%) and pet care (up 10%). Put simply: You probably won’t get what you want, you’ll likely buy at the wrong time and it will be hard to hold for the long term.
Ironically enough, Nvidia’s success has made it harder for some of the AI funds to beat the wider market. Part of the point of using a fund is to diversify, so many funds weight their holdings equally or cap the maximum size of any one stock. With Nvidia making up more than 6% of the S&P 500, that led some AI funds to have less exposure to the biggest AI stock than you would get in a broad index fund.
This problem hit the three losers of the year. First Trust’s $457 million AI-and-robotics fund has only 0.8% in Nvidia, a bit over half what it holds in cybersecurity firm BlackBerry .
WisdomTree ’s $213 million AI-and-innovation fund holds the same amount of each stock, giving it only 3% in Nvidia.
BlackRock ’s $610 million iShares Future AI & Tech fund was also equal weighted until three weeks ago, when it altered its purpose from being a robotics-and-AI fund, changed ticker and switched to a market-value-based index that gives it a larger exposure to Nvidia.
The result has been a 20-percentage-point gap between the best and worst AI ETFs this year. There is a more than 60-point gap since the launch of ChatGPT in November 2022 lit a rocket under AI stocks—although the ETFs are at least all up since then.
The market has penalized being equal weighted recently, instead rewarding big holdings in the largest stocks.
Jay Jacobs , U.S. head of thematic and active ETFs at BlackRock, says it is best to be market-value weighted when a theme has winner-takes-all characteristics, which he says generative AI has. When the firm’s AI fund included robotics it was spread across a lot more stocks that didn’t compete with each other, so equal weighted made more sense.
For investors, it isn’t so simple. Global X takes the opposite approach with its two $2 billion-plus AI funds, AIQ and BOTZ. BOTZ only buys stocks that focus on AI and robotics, but takes larger positions. AIQ spreads its bets on AI and tech more widely, and its 3% cap on its biggest holdings each time it rebalances means it has far less in Nvidia than BOTZ, with a cap of 8%. AIQ still managed to beat BOTZ this year, though.
So far, so confusing. The basic lesson: Picking among funds within a theme is hard, and depends on luck as well as close reading of the fund’s documents. A more advanced lesson is that it is hard to pick a theme in the first place, or to stick with it. The three problems:
1. Defining the theme is hard . Nvidia features in the anti-woke YALL ETF, which pitches itself as for “God-fearing, flag-waving conservatives.” The chip maker is also held by vegan, gender-diverse and climate-action ETFs. Its shares are clearly driven by the prospects for AI, but it is still big in computer-game and bitcoin ETFs, where its chips were originally used.
2. Timing the theme is even harder. Get in too early, and there aren’t any companies to buy. Get in when the funds are being launched, and the chances are the theme is already widely known and overpriced, as there are typically large numbers of launches during bubbles and late-stage bull markets.
“They are trendy by design,” says Kenneth Lamont, a senior researcher at Morningstar. “They play to our worst instincts, because we’re narrative-driven creatures.”
A recent example was the race to launch clean-energy and early-stage-tech ETFs during the bubble of late 2020 and early 2021. Performance since then has been miserable as prices corrected, with many of the ETFs halving or worse.
Dire timing is common across themes: According to a paper last year by Prof. Itzhak Ben-David of Ohio State University and three fellow academics, what they call “specialized” ETFs lose 6% a year on average over their first five years due to poor launch timing.
3. Long-term investing is pitched by fund managers as the goal for thematic investing, to hang on until the theme bears fruit. But even investors who really want to commit to a theme for the long run often find it hard, as so many funds are wound up, merged or change strategy when they go out of fashion.
The boom in internet funds of the late 1990s vanished after the dot-com bubble burst, with few surviving to see the internet theme blossom a decade later, while six of the 50 “metaverse” funds launched after Facebook switched to Meta Platforms in 2021 have already shut, according to Lamont.
The oldest thematic fund, the DWS Science and Technology mutual fund, started as the Television Fund in 1948 before adding electronics, and has gone through at least four other names. I only have data back to 1973, but it has lagged far behind the wider market since then, despite golden ages for television, electronics, science and now tech. (Yes, it has a lot of Nvidia.)
So what to do? At a very minimum, don’t buy based on the name of a fund. Look at the holdings, look at the index it follows and how it is structured, and consider whether it does what it says. Then think about just how expensive the idea has already become. Watch for the theme coming into fashion and getting overpriced, as that is a good time to sell (or to launch a fund).
But mostly, look at the fees: They will be many times higher than a broad market index fund, and the dismal history of poor timing suggests that for most people they aren’t worth paying.
Copyright 2020, Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved Worldwide. LEARN MORE
What a quarter-million dollars gets you in the western capital.
Alexandre de Betak and his wife are focusing on their most personal project yet.
Multinationals like Starbucks and Marriott are taking a hard look at their Chinese operations—and tempering their outlooks.
4 min
For years, global companies showcased their Chinese operations as a source of robust growth. A burgeoning middle class, a stream of people moving to cities, and the creation of new services to cater to them—along with the promise of the further opening of the world’s second-largest economy—drew companies eager to tap into the action.
Then Covid hit, isolating China from much of the world. Chinese leader Xi Jinping tightened control of the economy, and U.S.-China relations hit a nadir. After decades of rapid growth, China’s economy is stuck in a rut, with increasing concerns about what will drive the next phase of its growth.
Though Chinese officials have acknowledged the sputtering economy, they have been reluctant to take more than incremental steps to reverse the trend. Making matters worse, government crackdowns on internet companies and measures to burst the country’s property bubble left households and businesses scarred.
Now, multinational companies are taking a hard look at their Chinese operations and tempering their outlooks. Marriott International narrowed its global revenue per available room growth rate to 3% to 4%, citing continued weakness in China and expectations that demand could weaken further in the third quarter. Paris-based Kering , home to brands Gucci and Saint Laurent, posted a 22% decline in sales in the Asia-Pacific region, excluding Japan, in the first half amid weaker demand in Greater China, which includes Hong Kong and Macau.
Pricing pressure and deflation were common themes in quarterly results. Starbucks , which helped build a coffee culture in China over the past 25 years, described it as one of its most notable international challenges as it posted a 14% decline in sales from that business. As Chinese consumers reconsidered whether to spend money on Starbucks lattes, competitors such as Luckin Coffee increased pressure on the Seattle company. Starbucks executives said in their quarterly earnings call that “unprecedented store expansion” by rivals and a price war hurt profits and caused “significant disruptions” to the operating environment.
Executive anxiety extends beyond consumer companies. Elevator maker Otis Worldwide saw new-equipment orders in China fall by double digits in the second quarter, forcing it to cut its outlook for growth out of Asia. CEO Judy Marks told analysts on a quarterly earnings call that prices in China were down roughly 10% year over year, and she doesn’t see the pricing pressure abating. The company is turning to productivity improvements and cost cutting to blunt the hit.
Add in the uncertainty created by deteriorating U.S.-China relations, and many investors are steering clear. The iShares MSCI China exchange-traded fund has lost half its value since March 2021. Recovery attempts have been short-lived. undefined undefined And now some of those concerns are creeping into the U.S. market. “A decade ago China exposure [for a global company] was a way to add revenue growth to our portfolio,” says Margaret Vitrano, co-manager of large-cap growth strategies at ClearBridge Investments in New York. Today, she notes, “we now want to manage the risk of the China exposure.”
Vitrano expects improvement in 2025, but cautions it will be slow. Uncertainty over who will win the U.S. presidential election and the prospect of higher tariffs pose additional risks for global companies.
For now, China is inching along at roughly 5% economic growth—down from a peak of 14% in 2007 and an average of about 8% in the 10 years before the pandemic. Chinese consumers hit by job losses and continued declines in property values are rethinking spending habits. Businesses worried about policy uncertainty are reluctant to invest and hire.
The trouble goes beyond frugal consumers. Xi is changing the economy’s growth model, relying less on the infrastructure and real estate market that fueled earlier growth. That means investing aggressively in manufacturing and exports as China looks to become more self-reliant and guard against geopolitical tensions.
The shift is hurting western multinationals, with deflationary forces amid burgeoning production capacity. “We have seen the investment community mark down expectations for these companies because they will have to change tack with lower-cost products and services,” says Joseph Quinlan, head of market strategy for the chief investment office at Merrill and Bank of America Private Bank.
Another challenge for multinationals outside of China is stiffened competition as Chinese companies innovate and expand—often with the backing of the government. Local rivals are upping the ante across sectors by building on their knowledge of local consumer preferences and the ability to produce higher-quality products.
Some global multinationals are having a hard time keeping up with homegrown innovation. Auto makers including General Motors have seen sales tumble and struggled to turn profitable as Chinese car shoppers increasingly opt for electric vehicles from BYD or NIO that are similar in price to internal-combustion-engine cars from foreign auto makers.
“China’s electric-vehicle makers have by leaps and bounds surpassed the capabilities of foreign brands who have a tie to the profit pool of internal combustible engines that they don’t want to disrupt,” says Christine Phillpotts, a fund manager for Ariel Investments’ emerging markets strategies.
Chinese companies are often faster than global rivals to market with new products or tweaks. “The cycle can be half of what it is for a global multinational with subsidiaries that need to check with headquarters, do an analysis, and then refresh,” Phillpotts says.
For many companies and investors, next year remains a question mark. Ashland CEO Guillermo Novo said in an August call with analysts that the chemical company was seeing a “big change” in China, with activity slowing and competition on pricing becoming more aggressive. The company, he said, was still trying to grasp the repercussions as it has created uncertainty in its 2025 outlook.
Few companies are giving up. Executives at big global consumer and retail companies show no signs of reducing investment, with most still describing China as a long-term growth market, says Dana Telsey, CEO of Telsey Advisory Group.
Starbucks executives described the long-term opportunity as “significant,” with higher growth and margin opportunities in the future as China’s population continues to move from rural to suburban areas. But they also noted that their approach is evolving and they are in the early stages of exploring strategic partnerships.
Walmart sold its stake in August in Chinese e-commerce giant JD.com for $3.6 billion after an eight-year noncompete agreement expired. Analysts expect it to pump the money into its own Sam’s Club and Walmart China operation, which have benefited from the trend toward trading down in China.
“The story isn’t over for the global companies,” Phillpotts says. “It just means the effort and investment will be greater to compete.”
Corrections & Amplifications
Joseph Quinlan is head of market strategy for the chief investment office at Merrill and Bank of America Private Bank. An earlier version of this article incorrectly used his old title.
